The preceding lines had already been written when we received the resolutions of the Caucasian conference of neo-Iskrists published by *Iskra*. Pour la bonne bouche (for a fitting conclusion) we could not have invented better material.

The editorial board of *Iskra* rightly observes: "On the fundamental question of tactics, the Caucasian conference also arrived at a decision analogous" (true!) "to the one adopted at the all-Russian conference" (i.e., the neo-Iskrist conference). "The question of the attitude of social-democracy toward the provisional revolutionary government was decided by the Caucasian comrades in the sense of the most negative attitude toward the new method propagated by the *Vpered* group and the delegates who attached themselves to the so-called congress." "The formulation of the tactics of the proletarian party in a bourgeois revolution, given by the conference, must be recognized as very felicitous."

What is true is true. No one could have given a more "felicitous" formulation of the fundamental error of the neo-Iskrists. We present this formulation in full, noting first in brackets the flowers, and then the berries presented at the end.

The resolution of the Caucasian conference of neo-Iskrists on the provisional government:

"Considering it our task to use the revolutionary moment for deepening" (of course! One should add: for Martinovian deepening!) "the social-democratic consciousness of the proletariat" (only for deepening consciousness, not for winning a republic? What a "deep" understanding of revolution!), "the conference, in order to ensure for the party the fullest freedom of criticism of the nascent bourgeois-state system" (ensuring the republic is not our business! Our business is only to ensure freedom of criticism. Anarchist ideas generate anarchist language too: "bourgeois-state" system!), "declares against the formation of a social-democratic provisional government and entry into it" (recall the resolution of the Bakuninists cited by Engels ten months before the Spanish revolution: see *Proletariy* No. 3[33]), "and considers it most expedient to exert pressure from without" (from below, not from above) "on the bourgeois provisional government for the democratization of the state system insofar as possible (?!). The conference believes that the formation by social-democrats of a provisional government or entry into it would lead, on the one hand, to the defection from the social-democratic party of the broad masses of the proletariat, disappointed in it, since social-democracy, despite seizing power, will be unable to satisfy the pressing needs of the working class until socialism is realized" (a republic is not a pressing need! The authors, in their innocence, do not notice that they are speaking in purely anarchist language, as if they were denying participation in bourgeois revolutions!), "and, on the other hand, will force the bourgeois classes to recoil from the business of revolution and thereby weaken its scope."

Here lies the dog buried. Here anarchist ideas interweave (as this constantly happens among Western European Bernsteinians too) with the purest opportunism. Just think: not to enter the provisional government because this will force the bourgeoisie to recoil from the business of revolution and thereby weaken the scope of revolution! For here we have in full, in pure and consistent form, that neo-Iskrist philosophy that since the revolution is bourgeois, we therefore must bow before bourgeois vulgarity and yield it the road. If we are guided, even partly, even for a moment, by the consideration that our participation may force the bourgeoisie to recoil, then we thereby completely surrender the leadership of the revolution to the bourgeois classes. We thereby wholly place the proletariat under the guardianship of the bourgeoisie (remaining with full "freedom of criticism"!!), compelling the proletariat to be moderate and meek so that the bourgeoisie does not recoil. We castrate the most pressing needs of the proletariat, namely its political needs, which the "Economists" and their epigones have never properly understood, we castrate them for fear that the bourgeoisie should not recoil. We completely transition from the ground of revolutionary struggle for the realization of democracy within the limits needed by the proletariat to the ground of haggling with the bourgeoisie, purchasing through our betrayal of principles, betrayal of the revolution, the bourgeoisie's voluntary consent ("so that it does not recoil").

In two small lines the Caucasian neo-Iskrists have managed to express the entire essence of the tactics of betraying the revolution, of turning the proletariat into a pitiful tail of the bourgeois classes. What we deduced above from the errors of neo-Iskrism as a tendency is now set forth as a clear and definite principle: in the tail of the monarchist bourgeoisie. Since the realization of a republic would make (and already makes – the example of Mr. Struve) the bourgeoisie recoil, therefore down with the struggle for a republic. Since the bourgeoisie is always and everywhere caused to recoil by every energetic and thoroughgoing democratic demand of the proletariat, therefore – crawl into your holes, comrade workers, act only from without, do not think of using for the revolution the instruments and means of the "bourgeois-state" system, and preserve for yourselves "freedom of criticism."

The fundamental falsity in the very understanding of the term "bourgeois revolution" has come to light here. The Martinovian or neo-Iskrist "understanding" of it leads straight to the betrayal of the proletariat's cause into the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Whoever has forgotten the old "Economism," whoever does not study it, does not recall it, will find it difficult to understand the present belch of "Economism." Recall the Bernsteinian "Credo."[34] From "purely proletarian" views and programs people deduced: for us, social-democrats, economics, real working-class business, freedom of criticism of all politicking, real deepening of social-democratic work. For them, liberals, politics. God forbid we fall into "revolutionism": this will make the bourgeoisie recoil. Whoever rereads the "Credo" in full or the separate Appendix to No. 9 of *Rabochaya Mysl*[35] (September 1899), will see this entire train of reasoning.

Now the same thing, only on a grand scale, in application to the evaluation of the entire "great" Russian revolution – alas, vulgarized and caricatured in advance by theoreticians of orthodox philistinism! For us, social-democrats, freedom of criticism, deepening of consciousness, action from without. For them, the bourgeois classes, freedom of action, freedom of field for revolutionary (read: liberal) leadership, freedom to carry through "reforms" from above.

These vulgarizers of Marxism have never pondered Marx's words about the necessary transition from the criticism of arms to the criticism of arms.[36] Vainly taking Marx's name upon themselves, they in fact draw up tactical resolutions entirely in the spirit of the Frankfurt bourgeois windbags, freely criticizing absolutism, deepening democratic consciousness, and not understanding that the time of revolution is the time of action, action from above and from below. Having transformed Marxism into mere philosophizing, they have made of the ideology of the most advanced, most decisive, and most energetic revolutionary class the ideology of the most undeveloped strata of that class, hiding from difficult revolutionary-democratic tasks and leaving these democratic tasks to Messrs. Struve.

If the bourgeois classes recoil, as a consequence of the entry of social-democracy into the revolutionary government, from the business of revolution, they will thereby "weaken its scope."

Hear, Russian workers: the scope of the revolution will be stronger if it is carried through not by Messrs. Struve, who are frightened away by social-democrats, who want not victory over tsarism but a deal with it. The scope of the revolution will be stronger if one of the two possible outcomes, which we outlined above, is realized – that is, if the monarchist bourgeoisie haggles with the autocracy over a "constitution" like the Shipov one!

Social-democrats who write such shameful things in resolutions for the guidance of the entire party, or who approve these "felicitous" resolutions, are so blinded by philosophizing that has drained all living spirit from Marxism, that they do not notice how these resolutions turn into empty phrases all their other good words. Take any article of theirs from *Iskra*, take even the notorious pamphlet of our celebrated Martinov – you will hear speeches about popular uprising, about bringing the revolution to completion, about striving to rely on the popular masses in the struggle against inconsistent bourgeoisie. But all these fine things turn into pitiful phrases the moment you accept or approve the idea of "weakening," as a consequence of the alienation of the bourgeoisie, the "scope of the revolution." One or the other, gentlemen: either we with the people must strive to carry through the revolution, achieving complete victory over tsarism, despite the inconsistent, selfish, and cowardly bourgeoisie; – or we do not allow this "despite," we fear lest the bourgeoisie "recoil," and then we betray the proletariat and the people to the bourgeoisie, the inconsistent, selfish, and cowardly bourgeoisie.

Do not dare to distort my words. Do not cry out that we are accusing you of conscious betrayal. No, you have unconsciously wallowed in the mire, just as the old "Economists" did, drawn irresistibly and irretrievably down the inclined plane of "deepening" Marxism into an anti-revolutionary, soulless, and lifeless "clever-talk."

On what real social forces does the "scope of the revolution" depend – have you thought about this, gentlemen? Let us set aside the forces of external politics, international combinations, which have been very favorable for us now, but which we all exclude from consideration, and rightly so, insofar as the question concerns Russia's internal forces. Look at these internal social forces. Against the revolution stands autocracy, the court, the police, bureaucracy, the army, a handful of high nobility. The deeper the indignation in the people, the more unreliable the army becomes, the more wavering among the bureaucracy. Furthermore, the bourgeoisie as a whole stands now for the revolution, eagerly spouting speeches about freedom, more and more frequently speaking in the name of the people and even in the name of the revolution.[41] But we, all of us Marxists, know from theory and observe daily and hourly in the example of our liberals, zemstvo activists, and "Liberationists," that the bourgeoisie stands for the revolution inconsistently, selfishly, cowardly. The bourgeoisie will inevitably turn, in its mass, to the side of counter-revolution, to the side of autocracy against the revolution, against the people, as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are satisfied, as soon as it "recoils" from consistent democracy (and it is already recoiling from it!). There remains "the people," that is, the proletariat and the peasantry: the proletariat alone is capable of going reliably to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic upheaval. Therefore, the proletariat fights for a republic in the front ranks, scornfully rejecting the foolish and unworthy counsel to consider whether the bourgeoisie will recoil. The peasantry includes a mass of semi-proletarian elements alongside petty-bourgeois ones. This makes it also unstable, compelling the proletariat to unite in a strictly class party. But the instability of the peasantry is fundamentally different from the instability of the bourgeoisie, for the peasantry at this moment is interested not so much in the unconditional protection of private property as in the seizure of the landlord's land, one of the main forms of this property. Without becoming socialist thereby, without ceasing to be petty-bourgeois, the peasantry is capable of becoming the full and most radical supporter of the democratic revolution. The peasantry will inevitably become such, if only the enlightening course of revolutionary events is not cut short too early by the bourgeoisie's betrayal and the proletariat's defeat. The peasantry will inevitably become, provided this condition is met, the mainstay of the revolution and the republic, for only a fully victorious revolution will be able to give the peasantry everything in the sphere of land reform, all that the peasantry wants, of which it dreams, which it truly needs (not for the destruction of capitalism, as the "Socialist-Revolutionaries" imagine, but) in order to rise out of the mire of semi-serfdom, out of the darkness of oppression and bondage, in order to improve its living conditions to the extent that this is possible within the limits of commodity economy.

Moreover: it is not only radical agrarian transformation that binds the peasantry to the revolution, but also all the general and constant interests of the peasantry. Even in struggle with the proletariat, the peasantry needs democracy, for only a democratic system is capable of precisely expressing its interests and giving it predominance, as a mass, as a majority. The more enlightened the peasantry becomes (and since the war with Japan it has been becoming enlightened at a pace which many do not suspect, accustomed as they are to measuring enlightenment only by the school measure), the more consistently and decisively it will stand for complete democratic upheaval, for it does not fear, as the bourgeoisie does, but finds advantageous the supremacy of the people. A democratic republic will become its ideal, once it begins to free itself from naive monarchism, for the conscious monarchism of the brokering bourgeoisie (with an upper chamber, etc.) means for the peasantry the same lack of rights, the same oppression and darkness, only slightly touched up with European constitutional varnish.

That is why the bourgeoisie, as a class, naturally and inevitably strives under the wing of a liberal-monarchist party, and the peasantry, as a mass, under the leadership of a revolutionary and republican party. That is why the bourgeoisie is incapable of bringing the democratic revolution to completion, while the peasantry is capable of bringing the revolution to completion, and we must do everything in our power to help it in this.

I shall be objected to: there is no need to prove this, this is an ABC, all social-democrats understand it perfectly. No, those who are capable of speaking of the "weakening of the scope" of the revolution as a consequence of the bourgeoisie's defection from it do not understand this. Such people repeat learned words of our agrarian program, but do not understand their meaning, for otherwise they would not fear the concept of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, which inevitably follows from all Marxist worldview and from our program; otherwise they would not limit the scope of the great Russian revolution to the scope of the bourgeoisie. Such people beat their abstract Marxist revolutionary phrases with their concrete anti-Marxist and anti-revolutionary resolutions.

Whoever truly understands the role of the peasantry in the victorious Russian revolution would be incapable of saying that the scope of the revolution will be weakened when the bourgeoisie recoils. For in fact it is only then that the true scope of the Russian revolution will begin, only then will this be truly the greatest revolutionary scope possible in the epoch of the bourgeois-democratic upheaval, when the bourgeoisie recoils and the mass of the peasantry appears as an active revolutionary alongside the proletariat. In order to be brought consistently to completion, our democratic revolution must rely on forces capable of paralysing the inevitable inconsistency of the bourgeoisie (i.e., forces capable of precisely "making it recoil," which the Caucasian advocates of *Iskra*, from lack of thought, fear).

The proletariat must carry the democratic upheaval to completion, drawing to itself the mass of the peasantry, in order to crush by force the resistance of autocracy and paralyze the wavering of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat must accomplish the socialist upheaval, drawing to itself the mass of semi-proletarian elements of the population, in order to break by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and paralyze the wavering of the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie. Such are the tasks of the proletariat, which the neo-Iskrists represent so narrowly in all their discussions and resolutions about the scope of the revolution.

One circumstance must not be forgotten – one often overlooked in discussions on this "scope." One must not forget that we are not talking about the difficulties of the task, but about which path to take to seek and achieve its solution. We are not talking about whether it is easy or difficult to make the scope of the revolution mighty and invincible, but about how one should act to strengthen this scope. The disagreement concerns the very fundamental character of activity, its very direction. We emphasize this because inattentive and unscrupulous people too often confuse two distinct questions: the question of the direction of the path, i.e., the choice of one of two different paths, and the question of the ease of achieving the goal or nearness of achieving it on this path.

We have not at all touched on this latter question in the preceding exposition, for this question has caused no disagreement and division within the party. But, of course, this question itself is extremely important and deserves the most serious attention of all social-democrats. It would be impermissible optimism to forget the difficulties connected with drawing not only the working class but also the peasantry into the movement. It was precisely on these difficulties that efforts to bring the democratic revolution to completion have broken more than once, with the triumph going most of all to the inconsistent and selfish bourgeoisie, which would "gain capital" from the monarchist protection against the people and "preserve its innocence" through liberalism… or "Liberationism." But difficulty is not impossibility. What is important is confidence in the correct choice of path, and this confidence increases a hundredfold the revolutionary energy and revolutionary enthusiasm capable of performing miracles.

Page 157 of the manuscript of V. I. Lenin's "Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution." – 1905. (Reduced)

How profound is the divergence among contemporary social-democrats on the question of choosing the path is immediately apparent from a comparison of the Caucasian resolution of the neo-Iskrists and the resolution of the III Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party. The Congress resolution says: the bourgeoisie is inconsistent, it will certainly strive to rob us of the conquests of the revolution. Therefore, prepare yourselves more energetically for the struggle, comrade workers, arm yourselves, draw the peasantry to your side. We will not yield our revolutionary conquests to the selfish bourgeoisie without a fight. The resolution of the Caucasian neo-Iskrists says: the bourgeoisie is inconsistent, it may recoil from the revolution. Therefore, comrade workers, please do not think of participation in the provisional government, for then the bourgeoisie will certainly recoil and the scope of the revolution will be weaker because of it!

Some say: push the revolution forward, to completion, despite the resistance or passivity of the inconsistent bourgeoisie.

Others say: do not think of independently bringing the revolution to completion, for then the inconsistent bourgeoisie will recoil from it.

Is this not a pair of diametrically opposed paths before us? Is it not obvious that one tactic absolutely excludes the other? Is not the first tactic the only correct tactic of revolutionary social-democracy, while the second is essentially purely a "Liberationist" tactic?